Mr. Beck has been a somewhat enigmatic figure for me, up till now. Unfortunately, things have become much clearer of late. by Mike Blevins
(libertarian)
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
I suppose I should thank you, Glenn Beck, for finally clearing things up for me. You see, I haven't known which hole to stick you into. I wasn't certain how to respond to you. I've heard you, Mr. Family Values Guy, spouting your deeply-held pro-life views, decrying the encroachment of secular progressive values in American life, and boohooing the nation's apparent slide into socialism. For these and many other reasons, I naturally pegged you as a conservative, a sort of Rush Limbaugh wannabe who waves the flag and serves up generous portions of apple pie to Mom and whoever else will listen. After all, did you not say, "I am a 'conservative,' I'm not a 'Republican,' and there's a big difference."?1
For a while, I thought you might simply be a clown, a guy who scores a few points by reducing the opposition through absurdity. (a la Steven Colbert and John Stewart, et al) Yes, I saw the cover of that book you wrote where you're all dressed up like Stalin with your big lip jutting out there like Evita Peron's balcony.2 You were a scream. I have to admit, you had me going for a while.
At times, Mr. Beck, you managed to come across like a sincere patriot. Not long ago, I saw you get all broken up and weep openly on the air. "I'm sorry," you said, "I just love my country, and I fear for it."3 You turn on the waterworks a lot, did you know that? Are you really that sad for your country, Mr. Beck? Or are things just not going your way?
You waded right into the middle of that whole Tea Party thing. You started talking about nine this and twelve that, so I thought, 'maybe he's a closet libertarian and I just didn't notice.' You told the Miami Herald: ''Every day that goes by, I'm more and more libertarian. I've always been a conservative. But every day I find myself believing more and more in states' rights, individual rights--let people alone, get the government out of everybody's lives, let everybody rule themselves."4
Yes, Mr. Beck, you're a multi-faceted soul, a man of many talents.
Before you converted to a self-described "libertarian," did you bother to get out your Funk and Wagnall and look up the meaning of the word? Did you miss the fact that, as a species, we libertarians are inherently cynical about the benevolence of governments? Did it get past you that we expect governments to be open and responsive and to protect liberties, not destroy them?
Unlike any "libertarian" I've ever known, you have this thing about grassroots Americans who expect their government to answer a few honest questions about something that's very important. I'm talking about your incessant fixation about the 9-11 Truthers. Let me be clear: I am not one of them, but I'm honest enough to admit they are asking some mighty unnerving questions. Uncomfortable, downright scary questions that need answers--but guess what? The government isn't answering. Even members of the 9-11 Commission have gone on record saying that the full truth was not divulged.5
Are you "libertarian" enough, Mr. Beck, to admit that "We the People" have a right to call our government to account and hold it responsible to deal truthfully with us? Whether the government intentionally caused the 9-11 attacks or not isn't the bottom line question. Here's the real bottom line: Is the federal government now our master? Have we become its slaves? Has government 'of the people, by the people, for the people' perished from the earth?
If you get right down to it, that's really all Debra Medina was saying. She said the 9-11 Truthers were asking questions that needed answers--and she wasn't going to question their right to ask those questions and get those answers. Oh, I know, she really hemmed and hawed around. She made a mess of it, because she didn't expect a good "conservative" and "libertarian" to throw her such a loaded, jacked up, bean ball of a question. You caught her flat-footed, because you're a chameleon, Mr. Beck. She didn't know which skin you were wearing that day. Were you the conservative, the clown, the patriot, or the libertarian? Ms. Medina didn't know she was being punked on national radio. She didn't realize you had this insane hatred of average Americans asking honest questions of their government. (You said you were going libertarian, right?)
I'll tell you, sir, I know you're all fanned out like a peacock right now. You're proud of what you did. You exposed that "wild-eyed, lunatic fringe weirdo," didn't you?
Well, as a proud Texan and real libertarian, I'll tell you what you really did. You destroyed the campaign of someone that we desperately needed in Texas. Debra Medina had fresh and daring ideas that were exploding in the minds and hearts of Texas voters. Her star was rising rapidly in the Lone Star State, because we had finally found someone who made sense, who wasn't sold out to cronyism, big government, and politics as usual. She was the voice of a revitalized Republican Party--recast in its original libertarian trappings. She had real answers to real problems. She didn't talk about 9-11 Truthers. She focused on restoring property rights, limiting the size and scope of government, lowering and even eliminating taxes, and restoring constitutional government. Those are all things you've said you believe in, Mr. Beck. Why did you have to drag her into the middle of your conspiratorial fantasy?
We know how much you love Rick Perry. I watched you ride to his rescue. Did you and your new Fox cohort, Sarah Palin, cook up this ambush? (We know she loves Perry too) So everything's all clear now. Glenn Beck: shill for the politics-as-usual, big government, warmongering, neocon wing of the Republican Party. Thanks for destroying the greatest thing to come along in Texas since Sam Houston himself.
1 Commentary: Obama no, McCain maybe; CNN.com; www.cnn.com/2008/US/06/25/beck.conservatives/index.html
2 Arguing with Idiots: How to Stop Small Minds and Big Government by Glenn Beck
3 Glenn Beck; Fox News Channel. You Tube; www.youtube.com/watch?v=oumQl8neO6w&feature=PlayList&p=3C1384AAD1E10056&index=4
4 Miami Herald, January 2009; www.lp.org/blogs/donny-ferguson/glenn-beck-im-more-and-more-libertarian
5 Former Senator Max Cleland; http://www.democracynow.org/2004/3/23/the_white_house_has_played_cover
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 317
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Mike Blevins only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Mike Blevins is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
I am now convinced that Glenn Beck is a bought and paid-for Neocon shill. Just like Palin, he loves to masquerade as a "libertarian"--probably because he senses that's the way the wind is blowing right now. Let the wind shift and Beck will shift with it. The video you suggested perfectly illustrates the truth of my article. Beck thinks its perfectly ok if HE has questions, but it's not ok for anybody else to have questions. Get this--you can't even ASK. If you do, Glenn Beck will brand you as a lunatic. Look at how discussion of this issue is going to be chilled by what he did to Medina. He made a high profile EXAMPLE of her. Most public officials and political candidates won't touch the issue now. Glenn Beck has managed to shut them all down.
Because of the Medina interview/ambush, I am convinced that the "powers that be" within the neoconservative/statist aspect of the Republican Party are utilizing willing fellow travelers Beck and Palin to co-opt and de-fuse the potential of the Tea Party Movement. Palin's endorsement of Perry and the short term Perry campaign robocall message after the Beck ambush of Medina speak to their complicity. Like you said: Unfortunately, they show their colors, and these two powers that could have helped libertarianism grow and flourish can now be seen to be on the neocon team, and always were, I guess...
Beck's nothing more than a hand-puppet for the GOP political machine. He's totally lacking in any sort of creditability. Your drawing is right on. Great article although I'm not sure that he brought Medina down. He may have strengthened her.
I found it interesting that Beck would grill (or is that shill against?) Medina for her views while completely ignoring the fact that Sarah Palin supports a new investigation into 9/11. Whether you believe in an inside job or not, which personally I'd like more info (facts) before leaning one way or another, there were a lot of questions left unanswered and, that just created more questions! Especially when you consider that at least six of the 9/11 commissioners felt their own report was flawed, or worse.
Posted By: Jahfre Fire Eater
Date: 2010-02-18 18:25:24
I've always viewed the herd as deserving the masters they accept. The 912 herd is no different than any other through out history. Beck has always been Beck; easy to manipulate herds have always been easy to manipulate herds.
Now the herd will turn on Beck because he didn't live up to their ridiculous hopes for him but will they disband and begin to behave as individuals by defending their individual liberty? No. It will not cross the minds of most of them. They will moo and moo until a new rodeo clown tells them how smart and wonderful and UNIQUE they are. Soon another Beck will pacifiy their frantic mood and their insatiable need to be led.
Anyone who uses the word "neo-con" should be laughed at. It's a pejorative term used only to disparage people who think the nation should be protected from foreign enemies. Was Bush perfect at this? Of course not. But with Ron Paul's plans for the military we'd soon be invaded by Canada.
Posted By: Voice of Reason
Date: 2010-02-27 03:39:29
IF all of you Beck bashers actually WATCHED the Beck Program, instead of reading quotes, you would see he is FOR the Constitution, and Against Big spending and Big Government. He Disliked Bush as much as Obama's Socialist take over of our country. I can show you a quote from a recent interview, where Beck was quoted as saying "Regan was not a Republican" which is entirely the opposite from what he thinks. (because I have listened to him for over 2 years)
I herd that interview of the Texan, and she was not DUPED, he asked a straight forward question..." was the government directly responsible for 911 in your opinion..." which she could not answer yes or no.
Really though..... listen for a week and come back here and leave a message, im sure all of your answers will be clearer on where Beck Stands. The radio show, which is 3 hours is fairly entertaning, as they joke around alot.
I don't trust the politicians on a lot of things, but I am not a conspiracy theorist. I don't think they did anything to bring on 9-11. The 9-11 Truthers have every right to ask the questions, but if Medina isn't one, it should have been simple for her to say so. Of course, I don't think what a commentator in New York thinks about a Texas politician should be relevant, just as I shouldn't have a say in Texas about politicians in other states.
Beck has opened up the minds of a lot of people to the idea that there are more than two choices. He has also shown how both the big parties are now all about big government, just in different ways. People don't have to choose just between the R and the D.
What Beck did to Madina exposed his ugly side. The same kind of idiotic knee jerk dismissal of ideas and mindless reactionary scoffing that Beck is maligned with constantly, himself. A true thinker doesn't behave this way, Benjamin Franklin wouldn't behave this way. Beck has shown he can be a mental midget, and it's not the first time.
Beck decries violence, while making a hero of Revolutionary Patriots like Washington and others like him. Men who murdered to bring their ideals to fruition. Not because they were whack jobs, but it was the only way. He ignores this while he says what will put him in a more main stream light, taking away some of the critisisms against him as promoting violent revolution.
Beck brought Van Jones to spot light, along with others. Van Jones was pushed out because he is a truther. That wasn't Becks big case against him, and he didn't demand his resignation, but still, it was the truther thing that took out Jones, when it should have been that he's a crazy self avowed commiecrat. How would it look on Beck if he was tolerant of truthers after this?
Still, Beck has done a lot of good for the movement. He is imperfect, has some serious flaws, probably isn't the perfect voice for change. Appears to be somewhat of a self interested hipocrite and a jerk at times. It is hard to find anyone without flaws and he has contributed. I think to totally go anti Beck because of a disagreement is no better than what Beck did to Medina, and damages the movement.
But to attack Palin? Malign her as someone for sale? Someone who came up not looking for power, but fighting corruption? Someone who took on her own party, went through hell to do it, showed she was absolutely not for sale, obviously never really wanted the governorship or the power, and gave it up when the time was right. A reluctant patriot put into a position because she was fighting corruption and immune to payoff. Going after her because she supported a candidate is just mindless and idiotic in my view. She has shown herself to be the best there is out there in line with what this country needs today. The attacks on her are small minded and shallow knee jerk idiocy.
We need people, imperfect people, and none of us are perfect. We are not going to get Jesus to run, or support the cause. Beck has been the best friend the movement has ever had, and a self interested juvanile idiot at times, but to toss all imperfect supporters and friends is to destroy the movement, and play right into the hands of those who we all know are the real enemy to freedom, our Constitution, and our liberty.
I'm not so happy with Beck right now. I've had a few disapointments with him, but we need to grow up people, if we are to get anything done and not die on the vine as our enemies would love. In fact it would be in their best interest to push hate for Beck who exposes what they want quieted. AND Especially leaders like Palin who are their worst nightmare, and the Constitution loving people's best friend.
WHERE IS THE THUMBS DOWN BUTTON!! Mr Blevins you are a fool! Apparently you do not watch or listen to Mr. Beck on a regular basis. If you did you would know that he is actually consistent in his beliefs. He may not agree with your rather odd views about 9/11, but he is certainly no schill for anyone. He actually uses history and evidence to make his points, and yes he is funny. by the way who are you to make these accusations. Shame on you...
The rhetoric that I've read here on this page is exactly the reason we are where we are. There is no common ground anymore it seems, and we may as well raise our white flags and hand everything that is ours; mind, body and soul; over to Obama and his minions.
Leslie, I have similar thoughts about this recent Beck/Palin bashing and picayune (small; petty; mean; paltry) in fighting. In fact, our Forefathers did not always agree and get along with each other. Fortunately for us, they managed to overcome the small differences to come together on the important issues to create our Constitution and Bill of Rights. Together we can act to salvage what attrition has worn away over the past century. It is vital for us to come together to act in a united fashion, despite minor differences of view and opinion. It doesn't matter that some have been asleep. What matters is that they are now waking up. I have the utmost confidence and belief that what the majority of Americans now will do is act to prevent that final destruction. The way I see it is the opposition has moved too fast and too soon. They were much better off keeping it slowly creeping up on everyone. Now that they have shown their hand in such a blatant and arrogant manner, they have done themselves in. We have the upper hand, they just have not realized it. Before they do realize it, we will have won. Let's not waste our energies squabbling amongst ourselves. It is not what one says, but what one does that is the true measure of anybody. We still are the mighty United States of America and we still have the ability to turn things around. Let's just do that.
I believe Beck serves a good purpose in 'enlightening' the Country regarding the fact that our nation is a Constitutional Republic and the Founder's/Framer's intent regarding individual liberty. That's about it. I also believe that Beck and O'Reilly have been reeled in on thier personal views by their Saudi owners of World News, the parent company of Fox News. Both Beck and O'Reilly have stated things that are anything but Libertarian oriented. Beck; by waving off 9-11 truthers and Birther's as unfounded and lacking evidence and O'Reilly by stating that insisting on the right to self defense during times of emergency in accordance with the 2nd Amendment is EXTREME even though the courts have ruled in favor of the Katrina's victims violated 2A rights and many states subsequently implementing laws to prevent a repeat offense on the Constitution in the future.
Glenn does need to take his own advice and "decide who you are" and stick to those principles. I have much more faith in law abiding Americans than our Government which a recent CNN pole shows 54% of Americans believe that government is a threat to our freedom. As far as 9-11 goes, I don't know what the hell happened but the "official" explanation doesn't explain the falling of Bldg.7. Inside job? Outside job? Who knows but we're not getting all the details.
What about the political correctness under "diversity" of the federal government as applied to the Ft. Hood terrorist attack? Where are the nut-job truthers on that out-in-the-open conspiracy? Clearly the concept of "diversity" for the Left means "Let's support and defend as many non-traditional, anti-American beliefs as we can then wave the banner of the 1st Amendment as cover."
This type of thinking led to the deaths of our heroes in uniform, and seems to me consistent with the thinking of the so-called libertarian Mr. Blevins. My bet is he's actually a liberal-statist, yet they are nowhere to be heard on this travesty.
I admit to feeling frustrated with Glenn Beck when he denigrates patriotic citizens like Medina for questioning what we've been told-- I do not believe our govt. brought down the towers but I am not sure that incompetence and political correctness did not play a role in the success of the 9-11 terrorist attacks and our govt. is certainly not going to admit that! However, Glenn Beck is a hero to me because without him, I find it impossible to believe that we would be seeing the political hurricane brewing that we do! He is an inspiration to me and my family!
Posted By: Nelson Lee Walker
Date: 2010-02-27 15:14:05
A Congress of career politicians will NEVER allow us to constitutionally term limit them by an amendment. But, we can IMPOSE term limits on them by taking steps in Congressional elections (‘2010, 2012, 2014......):
1. Don’t reelect your Congressman or Senator. 2. Always vote, but only for the strongest challenger ,regardless of party .
If Congress has not passed a term limits bill by 2014, repeat this in 2016, 2018....
Our only intelligent choice is to NEVER REELECT anyone in Congress!
The only infallible, unstoppable, guaranteed way to get a truly new Congress, AND a new politics, is NEVER REELECT ANY INCUMBENT! DO IT EVERY ELECTION until term limits is ratified. In other words, don't let anyone serve more than one term until Congress passes a term limits bill!
NEVER REELECT ANYONE IN CONGRESS. DO IT EVERY ELECTION! ... until we ratify term limits.
There has been a lot of great discussion going on--and that's good. It looks like I hit a nerve out there. For the record, I'm not anti-Beck either. I think he did a very hypocritical thing in punking Medina the way the did--since HE'S a 9-11 Truther himself. Not only that, he has painted himself as a Tea Partier, so it's really hard to understand why he would ambush someone like Medina. The best you can say is--it was thoughtless and reckless. As for Palin? Stop drinking the neocon coolaid, people! Palin's record, while in some ways admirable, only looks really good if you squint really hard. She was a short-term governor of a low-population state that just happens to be one of the highest per capita recipients of federal dollars in the union. She only turned against the "bridge to nowhere" AFTER it became a political liabilty. Do you think she returned the federal funds for it? Nope. She used them to build "the road to nowhere." (Come to think of it--that's where her political future leads, too!) There is nothing in her background to suggest the she can lead the Republican Party to make the changes necessary to be relevant again. People like Debra Medina, on the other hand, are just what the GOP needs. It's too bad Beck had to drag her into his small-minded conspiratorial rantings.
Posted By: Proud Member of the AMERICAN Party
Date: 2010-02-27 16:13:00
Blevins, while your argument is well-grounded, what you fail to see is the fact that the Glen Beck shows are the closest we're going to get to true "conservative" or "libertarian" programs in the media. I mean, you're upset at this guy - a man who proclaims that we must retain our rights within the Constitution (whether he actually believes this or not, it's a UNITING factor and the TRUTH) - when the rest of the media "stars" are far worse. Like Gloria said above, he's "inspirational". So, please stop railing on the best we've got because it's not perfect enough for YOU. If you can do better, then I would gladly watch your show.
And for the record, Beck IS "cynical about the benevolence of governments," - watch the show.
Proud Member---as I mentioned in my earlier post, I'm not anti-Beck. I'm disgusted at him for doing a great disservice to a fine woman who has something we desperately need in Texas. Put yourself in my shoes. What if it was a candidate you were excited about from your own state? I don't plan on launching any "hate Glenn Beck" clubs. Sometimes, you just got to get it off your chest--and Beck definitely had it coming. He definitely derailed Medina. If he had really thought it through, maybe he wouldn't have wanted to do that. Unless, he's actually a shill for the neocons--POSING as a libertarian, that is. Time will tell. And so will Beck.
I love Glenn Beck He is doing more to help this country than anyone. That Said I heard the Medina interview. I voted for her because we need politicians that are a little more skeptical.
I was at the tea party in San Antonio right behind Glen Beck. He could not say enough about how much he loved Texas and how much he admired Rick Perry. As you'll recall the timing, this was very soon after Perry's comments from the steps about secession. Glen is not a Texan and has not had the daily opportunity to follow Perry's performance on all of the issues here. I believe he formed a relationship with Perry and credits him for much of the success that is inherent in the way our government here is structured. Luckily it is difficult for one individual to do long lasting harm to our great state but it is just as easy to claim credit as I believe Perry has done.
Many folks I know that have worked for the state under Bush and Perry state Perry is no where near the executive Bush was. The state does not run as smoothly or efficiently as it did nine years ago. Most of them feel Perry is far more a politician than an operator so it stands to reason that he would manipulate both Palin and Beck's lack of local knowledge of the inner workings of our state to his advantage. He would have been a fool not to cultivate those relationships and you don't become a governor if you are a fool. He has presidential aspirations and that is patently obvious.
To date, Medina is an unknown quantity to both Palin and Beck but not to Perry. He undoubtedly recognizes the real threat Medina poses to him and has enlisted their help. They do not have enough up close and personal experience to discern a valid reason to support her over Perry. Someone had obviously known Debra could stump her toe on this one and suggested Glen lead with it. Perry is one of the professional politicians and he has a team that digs deep. They must have found something that led them to believe she might misspeak on this issue because it was a question from left field right out of the gate.
Any one of us could have been mislead as easily so I caution you not to miss the value the two of them (Palin and Beck) bring to the table. We all know Perry is very slick, we re-elected him so how can we hold others accountable when we made the same mistake. We have the benefit of the hindsight they might lack. It seemed to me that Debra might have thought he was referencing the birthers and not the truthers which would also make sense. That's my two cents for what it might be worth. We can prevail we just need to stand true, remember, right is right even if no one is doing it and vide versa.
Mike, I understand what you are saying but, in offering the benefit of the doubt, if you are lied to, your decisions can only be based on what you are given. Garbage in Garbage out. I have been lied to by people I trusted so, I understand how Beck in his ignorance could have easily been mislead. As Leslie said early this morning, Beck does not have inside perspective. There has only been one perfect person in 6,000 years and look what they did to him! Let's not castigate someone for their mistakes without an understanding of how that mistake was made. What he did was wrong, very wrong but, it was probably done out of a misguided loyalty developed in him by a less than honorable man.
It is a mistake to attack Beck for asking Medina this question. Yes or no, Medina should have taken a firm stand. We do not need more indicisive politicians representing the Libertarian or Conservative Parties.Beck got it right!
No, Beck was completely wrong and guided by erroneous impulses. Where is it carved in stone that one's stand on 9-11 truth should be a litmus test for public office? As I pointed out in my article, I am not a 9-11 Truther, myself. However, as a libertarian, I am just cynical enough about governments in general and the federal government in particular to think that the 9-11 Truthers DO HAVE some questions worth asking--and getting answers for. My personal position is that any government involvement in 9-11 is more due to incompetence than conspiracy--but nevertheless the questions remain--and they deserve answers. Various key, central figures in the 9-11 commission have gone on record saying that the full truth was not divulged--and that the government obstructed the investigations. Sarah Palin, herself, (Glenn Beck's buddy at Fox News, no less) has called for another 9-11 investigation. I haven't seen Beck call her in and "expose" on that yet.
Jazmarelda--I deeply appreciate your thoughtful and insightful "take" on the Beck/Medina fiasco. All I can say is, if Glenn Beck was misled and realizes it, then it is his responsibility to own up to that and correct it--publicly. I wouldn't hold my breath, if I were you.
Gordon Broussard--since you're a Texan, you've automatically got my respect. As a Texan, though, it ought to goad you anytime you hear of an honest-hearted fellow Texan being ambushed by a media ideologue. I completely agree that Medina didn't handle it well at all. She stumbled big time here. However, I hasten to point out that, inspite of that, she gave the only truly "libertarian" answer to the "bean ball" of a question posed to her. She obviously feels, as many of us do, that (as she said) the 9-11 Truthers are asking some good questions that need answers. She refused to deny them the right to question their government and receive those answers. It is, after all, their right. She could have handled the whole thing more intelligently, I admit. I'm sure it never occurred to her that such a question would be asked. 9-11 truth is not an issue in the Texas gubernatorial race. Most Texans don't give a rip. Like Medina, we're too busy thinking about reducing the size of government, eliminating taxes, and defending property rights to worry about such conspiratorial matters.
Dave--Nope. Medina was entirely truthful in what she said. That's what got her into trouble. She was too honest and forthright to give a politically correct response.
Blevins, I disagree with you. Glenn asked her a question and caught her off guard. Politicians must be aware at all times. Her failure to compentently answer Glenn's question simply exposed her radical stand about 911. Medina was clearly ill-equiped to answer his question. You attack Glenn and Sarah as Neo-Cons in much the same manner as the Leftists do. To me they are the sane voice of reason.
For a long time, I had considered myself to be what I thought was a classic conservative. I was a Reagan conservative, and I still believe he was one of our greatest leaders. BUT, over the last year I started listening to GB. I don't want to be a mindless zombie supporter of the man. I don't think he should run for president. I don't think he is faultless. I do no believe in his ideology, which technically isn't even his, it comes from proven history and our founding fathers who came here to get away from the oppressive government that many of us can see bearing down on us again today.
I am from Texas and I'm a teacher in Texas public schools. Believe me, I more than anyone cannot stand Perry. I didn't like what Bush did to this state from the standpoint of education. I don't like what Perry is doing to our state from the standpoint of catering to big business lobbyist. The whole mandatory HPV vaccination for young girls in our state came directly from that situation. Yes, we have a good economy in this state compared to that of much of the rest of the country, and Perry has almost nothing to do with that. The reason for that falls directly in line with the ideology of Glenn Beck. We don't have a state income tax. Our sales taxes are in line with the rest of the country, and our state government is not spending itself into debt for the most part. We are having some issues with property rights, and I believe that is something that will have to be resolved by our state constitution in some way, because it is local and county governments that are mostly infringing on those rights.
With all of that said, I don't know where I am exactly politically at the moment. I don't call myself a republican anymore. I know I am not a liberal. I might be a libertarian, but I am not totally sure yet. I plan on taking the test to see where I fall in my beliefs. I will not say I am one thing because of one person, even Beck. I know that when I listen to him, I agree with the things he says. I know that in the last year, I have learned more about the history and constitution of this country than I ever did in my 34 prior years. By the way, I was 6 hours short of a political science double major from a "conservative" christian university here in Texas.
My personal opinion on Medina v. Beck is that Beck may have needed to explore the question further with her, but I wholeheartedly believe that she failed to answer the question in a way that made me feel comfortable with her as a candidate. I'm not sure who I will vote for because I'm not sure we have a candidate I do feel comfortable with. Obviously not Perry. Hutchinson has sold out to big spending in Washington. Shami is, well, he just is. I think she avoided answering the real question, which was what she believed. I think Beck would agree that the people have a right to ask those questions, but that wasn't the essential question. The essential question was whether she believed the government was involved, and she failed to answer that question.
Ms Medina might be a perfectly wonderful candidate. But she is naive in the least if she thinks that she can go on a national radio show and not face uncomfortable questions. Glenn Beck didn't knock her down in the eyes of many Texans, she did it to herself by not answering the question clearly and strait forwardly. Part of being a libertarian is taking personal responsibility even when it is hard to admit you screwed up. It is not very libertarian to pass the blame to others. The author of this article needs to re-examine his feelings. This isn't about 9-11 anymore, though he is correct that all questions must be answered. This isn't about Rick Perry though he is correct that Mr Perry has a lot to answer for. It is about Debra Medina and her lack of preparedness or her lack of willingness to live up to the truth of her beliefs.
While I appreciate your fervor for Medina, I think that your anger is misguided. If Medina had answered honestly, instead of trying to answer as ambiguously as possible she would have avoided all of this. There is nothing wrong with wanting to the truth about 9-11. Nothing at all. What is wrong is giving a roundabout answer without really answering. If she had said "No. I do not believe that the government brought down the Twin Towers. I do not believe that government deliberately killed over 3000 Americans, but I do believe that the administration did know things, and they need to answer some question. We need to know the truth about what they knew, and the need to be held accountable if they knew that the attack was coming, but chose to not to act." There would have been nothing wrong with that. Why did not say that. Glenn would not have reacted the way he did if she would have just answered the question, but she did not. I read the transcript, and listened to the interview. She dodged the question, and she brought herself down. If Medina comes out with a statement and answers the question, everything will be good, and who knows maybe this will help. We need people who actually answers questions and believes what they says, and says what they believe. I am tired of running around questions to try and not offend people. If you believe that the government killed 3000 people to start a war with Iraq to bring down Saddam then say that. If you believe that we have to absolve the government and live without law or rule then say that. Just be honest with us.
Beck is a corporate shill and a false prophet. He is part of the Fox News gang and they are in it purely for profit. I'm not saying profit is bad, just that they are not operating to support the constitution.
He idolizes Lincoln, which is truly ironic because if Obama were as bad as Lincoln, then he would have ordered the Army to imprison Beck and Fox News dismantled (for the record, I did not vote for Obama and I do not support his policies).
Beck is working to establish himself as the leader of the current populist movement, as evidenced by his own comparison of himself with George Washington in a recent episode. This way he can be the one outing the infidels, propping up neocons, and pushing policies. Take a look at Bush's speeches prior to his own election - they sounded incredibly constitutional and in favor of limited government and generally completely opposite of how he performed. This is similar to the tactics Beck is using.
I have been watching his show every day since November, and I have made several observations, two of which are how infrequently he discusses the constitution and he never discusses the importance of the rule of law. This is a setup so that should neocons regain control, he can drop discussions on these altogether without anyone's really noticing. All of his long, drawn-out discussions on relationship and political leanings of various public officials and recommended readings of various obscure tomes are largely irrelevant as the only argument in all of these issues that really matters is the constitution. But since the constitution would also shut down the neocon policies, he doesn't discuss it.
The attack on Medina is the clearest evidence that he is not operating on a particular set of principles and is even in violation of a principle he claims on his show. He often states that he doesn't believe it's up to him to get involved in state elections, including federal elections in various states. Asking questions regarding 9/11 to a candidate for state governor is anathema to this type of philosophy and was clearly an attack meant to divide her supporters and derail her campaign. There is simply no other reason to ask her that question. This is where Beck will be most useful to the opponents of the current populist movement as its false prophet.
Want a little cheese with your whine? Beck has never said that people asking questions about 9/11 was a bad thing. What he has said is that if anyone believes that our government was involved, they are obligated to rebel against it as set forth by our Founders in the Declaration of Independence.
I'm not a Texan, so the point is kind of moot, but I was listening to that specific show when Ms. Medina was on. In my opinon, she was not ambushed... she was asked specific "yes or no" questions, and she "danced" around them. I think just as poignant as the initial question of was she a "truther", was the follow-up question of, if she would denounce someone in her administration if they were found to be a "truther". More Texas-Two-Stepping ensued. Yes or no, period. Ms. Medina's comments after the interview were evasive and odd to me as well, stating that issue didn't have anything to do with Texas... isn't Texas still part of the U.S.? I think people want get on board someone with ethics & honesty, and she (and only she) drew attention to herself with her inability and lack of skills to be confident and definitive in her position on this issue.
I think some of us need to take a step back. The libertarian movement is trying to sell a set of ideas to the American electorate that actually founded our country but have been largely lost for a hundred years. The 9/11 truther and the birther ideas are fringe ideas that do not help the cause, but allow the movement to be more easily dismissed by the left. I think Glen Beck realizes that these beliefs hurt the cause and was giving Medina a chance to seperate herself from them. She should have jumped at the chance to do so. Beck is the best thing to happen in giving America a chance to return to constitutional government in memory. I do not always agree with him but he comes closest to a popular push in the right direction than anyone out there with a national voice,
"Are you "libertarian" enough, Mr. Beck, to admit that "We the People" have a right to call our government to account and hold it responsible to deal truthfully with us?"
Actually if you ever listened to him and not just sound bites you would have heard him say numerous times that we the people not only have the right but the OBLIGATION to call our government to account on all matters. That's right truthers and non truthers he believes you not only have a right to question but an obligation to question so what exactly is the problem.....?
Beck asked Medina: "Do you think the Federal govt had anything to do with 9-11?" The answer to that should be a simple NO. If there are questions to be asked then fine ask them. And Beck did say, later, that he has no problem with people asking questions of their government; he went so far as to say people have an OBLIGATION to ask questions of their government if something is suspect. But to think that the Bush Administration had ANYTHING to do with encouraging, allowing, provoking or otherwise foreknowing or covering up the 9-11 attack --- that is loony. "But that's just my opinion, I could be wrong." Although I really sincerely doubt it.
Regarding Beck: We Texans’ do not need him messing around with our great sport of politics. It is, after all, a favorite past time in Texas and we do not need him ruining all the entertainment potential. Let Beck go help some other less fortunate state that is in a federally and/or State Government induced state of hopelessness. Lord knows he has a bunch from which to choose. We do not need him messing in this state and we damned sure are still capable of fighting the good fight.
We know we have Perry: the anti-sovereignty candidate that supported the Trans Texas corridor and forced hpv inoculations for young girls. We know he supported term limits until he was bound by them there promises. We know he is as crooked as ole hickory’s cane. And I reckon we all know about the hordes of lobbyist friends he has stuck in the proverbial revolving door of Austin politics, you know, the one that stays greased with other people’s money. But Hell, at least he has not said Read my lips… Mark my words folks, the corridor ideas are fixing to be resurrected next December.
We know we have the Houstonite, White, enough said.
We know we have good ole KBH: the jet setter that loves paying off lobbyist pals tabs with taxpayer dollars, a pro TARP candidate that is a self-serving and questionable career politician that has been under legal scrutiny on several occasions in past years. And yes, she too has a great appreciation for spending other folks money. I think those are what Yankees refer to as open secrets. I know one thing, it would be a lot of fun to fire up my smoker on one of them fancy jets have a beer with that ole gal and get some real scoop. Hell I might even get to observe “real government” in action.
We have not forgotten about that ”some other candidate” that offered to pay Texans 10 million dollars if he failed to produce 100,000 jobs. Now that dudes got substance. But a buck a vote seems a bit on the low side because every good Texan knows everything is bigger in Texas, yep, even bribes. Frankly, I am plain insulted. Ya’ll know we aren’t selling our votes for a penny less that our eastern neighbors got from Senator Mary “the Louisianan version of a conservative democrat.” We would want ours in gold-just kidding.
Now in the short term Glenn Beck has ruined our fun, we had Medina. How fitting that she was a frugal pro-constitution and pro-property rights non-trial lawyer candidate with real world experience and apparently, a crazy streak. How Texan is that! Hey Glenn, go check out the Texas Museum of History and Austin if you want to learn Texas Crazy. We appreciate crazy and crazy politicians in this state, the folks that got the cohunes’ to shake up the establishment. We all know this, a little bit of paranoia goes a long way in this state when dealing with them Crooked and Crazy Feds. But I am pretty comfortable knowing that at any given moment no less than ten million independent thinking Texans got a wary eye on them Washington people. It is ironic; she seemed to be the one voice of sanity in the race. She had the potential to be a revolutionary in the classical liberal sense that brought about the rise of The Great State of Texas and these United States. Those that believe everything the feds feed are just naïve.
Glenn Beck knows, and I suspect every student of history knows \\\\\\\"The Founders\\\\\\\" were radical, maybe even crazy conspiracy practitioners in their pursuit of the American experiment. Arguably, they were even crazier than Beck. I wonder what Glenn would have said and done if he had lived in the later half 1700’s and conducting an analysis of the times. On whose side would he (and you) have been? What questions would he have asked say, Thomas Jefferson, Ole philandering Ben or Tom Paine. Most importantly,- Would Glenn Beck have had the courage to fight and die for what our proud freedom seeking Texan and American ancestors believed in. I wonder.
So here we are, we are left with these wonderful same ole choices, crooked, crazy and Washington (crooked and crazy). Plenty of states could have used Becks help, TEXAS WAS NOT AND IS NOT ONE OF THEM. Yes, I can say with great confidence, this state has resisted the epidemic of groupthink that affects so much of an overly dependent country and now Beck, maybe. We are the capital of Independent thought and we damned sure fight for what we believe in. And despite having more guns than most countries; we do our best to keep our debates rational and intellectually honest. Corporatism or cronyism runs amuck in this state and we take the offender, expose them, and beat them at the ballot box. When that does not work, the Texas Rangers find the underlying cause of the non-sense and put the offending party in prison! Perhaps that is why Pery seems so determined to stay in the game.
Do not assume for one moment that we Texans do not notice what is going on up there in Washington. We see the useful Idiots on both sides of the suddenly Nationalist government focusing on micro managing people that prefer self-governance while they avoid the hard choices that will require addressing sooner than later if the Union is to survive. We see the loathsome establishment politicians that are apparently blind, deaf, and drunk with power and hell bent on getting their piece of the action as the creditors unwind this country through managed bankruptcy. Back in the good ole days I used to listen to the un-syndicated iteration of Beck as I drove from Treasure Island in St Pete Florida to Countryside to do my Real Job. I even saw Becks Perry love fest live at the Alamo Tea Party- and that was the real Glenn Beck I fondly remembered. How about those Alamo patriots, they too were also somewhat crazy were they not?
Now Glenn Beck hands off Texas politics and take note: we embrace Individualism and Exceptionalism in this still great state and I reckon we all know how to break the cycle of federally induced mediocrity if we must. And damn it, we surely do not need Glenn Beck messing with our reasonably honest and still civil great sport of state and local politics! I just hope we have the guts to get some new folks in the game.
Way to go Ed! You did a good job portraying the Texas position. I am, according to the test, an on-the-line conservative/libertarian. I am also a life-long Texan who has, on more than one occasion, joked about our great state seceding from the Union as the only solution to getting away from the ridiculous mess liberals have made of our country. I live in a district that consistently elects conservative representatives to Congress but I feel completely helpless while liberals in the rest of the country run/ruin our lives. I have not missed voting in an election in more than 30 years and I am less than 48 hours away from having to cast a vote for Governor and have no idea who I will vote for. I absolutely detest elections where we are choosing the “least-worst” option. I have no idea where this is going to land – I just hope that we have enough checks and balances in place that our state legislature will keep the winner in the Governor’s race in check. And yes – Ed is right – there ARE more guns in Texas than most countries. The rest of the US (including Glenn Beck) better wake up and DON’T MESS WITH TEXAS!
I've decided on the handle NW_Neocon because "a man is known by the character of his enemies." Considering what I've read here from those who toss that term around as an epithet, I'm pleased to solidly identify myself with those they despise.
Unlike those here who have identified Glenn Beck as a tool for the [fill in the blank], I've been listening, watching, and reading him for years. I've followed him as he grew not only in broadcasting stature, but as an amateur constitutional and historical scholar. He does not identify himself as a Libertarian; instead, he freely admits that he was formerly liberal, became a conservative Republican, and now finds himself agreeing more and more with libertarianism. He is not, however, a Libertarian, a Republican, or anyone's "shill." He is his own man, redefining himself not with the vagaries of ratings, political power shifts, or public opinion, but with the accumulation of truth in his search for the same. If you don't know that about him, if you really think otherwise, you don't know him and really have no valid opinion about him.
I was listening live to the Medina interview and the conversation leading up to it. She was not "ambushed" or "punked." Beck talked openly about the messages he had received from those who believed that she was a "Truther." Neither Beck nor his broadcasting crew believed it. He brought it up to dispense with the issue. She blew herself out of the water after Glenn gave her at least two opportunities to say that she does not believe the U.S. Government was responsible for the 9/11 attacks. Beck and his crew were rightly flabbergasted by the woman's unassisted on-air political suicide.
Beck is not married to Rick Perry as a candidate. He admits that, having met Perry, he likes him personally but has doubts about Perry's suitability as a state Governor. Glenn's friend and co-host Pat Gray is less ambivalent. Having been a Texas resident for eight years, he pans Perry on-air at every opportunity.
Medina may in fact have fabulous, transformational ideas about Texas government. If so, she needs to become the Chief of Staff or consult for someone who is electable. She might have great ideas and bags of integrity, but she has proven that she has neither the judgement nor the political savvy for any office greater than Mayor of Podunk Flats.
Here's a shocker for you, Texas: you do not have the moral right to elect Medina as your Governor. Yes, you read that right. This is the United States of America, and the Governor of Texas is one of only fifty such in the country. The judgement of the Governor of Texas, like it or not, does affect the people of Washington, Maine, Florida, and so on. As it happens, I feel the same way about my idiot neighbors in King County WA who twice elected Queen Christine Gregoire as Rick Perry's counterpart in this state. The jeopardy in which she has placed my state potentially endangers Texas in the same way the impending bankruptcy of California jeopardizes the other fifty states. For now, we are in this boat together. If and when Texas secedes from the USA you can elect the Octomom as your governor, for all I care. Until then, you have the responsibility to not elect a dimwit like my neighbors did.
The comments by many of you about the 9-11 Truthers sound ominously similar to the way Joe McCarthy used to talk about communists.
Anyway, if you need any more evidence that Beck ambushed Medina on behalf of Rick Perry, consider this:
Glenn Beck does not own himself. He has an owner. His name is Lowry Mays, Chairman and CEO of Clear Channel Communications. Mays pays Beck millions of dollars for his radio show. Over the years, Mays has also donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Rick Perry.
On February 11, when Medina guested on Beck’s show, she was (as she put it) “over the target.” She had come out of nowhere in what was supposed to have been a two-person race for Texas governor. She had given both Perry and Kay Hutchison a shellacking in two debates and had skyrocketed in the polls.
Is it any wonder, then, that Glenn Beck (owned by Lowry Mays) proceeded to sucker punch Medina with a question that had nothing whatsoever to do with Texas politics, the Tea Party movement, limited government, taxation, or anything else pertinent? Then, following the ambush, proceeded to engage in a disgusting repartee with Pat Gray in which he talks about “french kissing” Rick Perry?
Sorry, Dude. You lost me when you said you were not a truther. Everything you said after that said, "Truther here!!!" Why is it you people with an agenda refuse to see we get it? You're like saran wrap. We can see through it, but you cling. Get over it. We have more pressing issues. You may as well be wondering about the "magic bullet". It's not going to further us today! Think about what YOU can do to further us TODAY! It's so elementary, it's frustrating.
Let me get this straight - one question derailed a campaign? Not much of a candidate. Oh, one more thought - so the guy that asks the question is the villain... hmmmm
I am a proud native Texan who was going to vote for Medina until I heard Beck's interview. We Texans owe him a Texas-sized thank you card for that interview!
There was no ambush. The question was simple - did she believe that the government had any part in the 9/11 attacks? - and she refused to answer it. Affirmation or not, it was enough uncertainty about an incredibly important topic that she hadn't come to a decision on in the 8 years we've had since. Her spinning from the question was blatant: she was clearly uncomfortable answering honestly. Whether that was her ignorance regarding the issue or her way of attempting to get out of the question without lying matters little. In fact, she had a tough time answering any questions, coming on the air at the very beginning of the interview rude, combatative, and seemingly almost hostile.
The thing is that as much as I am so proud to be a Texan, I am an AMERICAN first. All these supposed Texans that are here blindly supporting Medina are an embarrassment to me: I thought we were better than the Obama-bots in this state! More than that, I know we love our country in this state, not just the state.
This bogus line about Medina's ambivalence towards the Truther conspiracy theroies being inconsequential or the other that "we can never really know the truth" is nothing but a weak-kneed, spineless jellyfish cop out: If you believe it's true or even possibly true that the United States Federal Government murdered in cold blood over 3000 American citizens, you have a moralobligation to uncover and face that truth. As a citizen and a human being. To pursue it at all costs. Especially because if that's the truth, then Mr. So-Called Libertarian, you have yourself a tyrannical government that is liesurely killing its citizenry: it's time to dispose of that government.
It's kind of an important issue to have an answer on. It's kind of an important issue to have a firm stance on. It's kind of an issue that trumps all others as AMERICANS! Why should we even tolerate for a second more a government guilty or possibly guilty of killing our fellow Americans with a petty election? Take up your arms and lead the charge!
Yeah, I'm disappointed about her. She was fresh and exciting, full of ideas and courage to keep us a soveriegn state. She wasn't Perry or KBH!! I was so excited to have someone to vote for in Medina. How rare that is today! I was telling all my friends about her, convincing them all to check her in the ballot box on Tuesday. I've had to reverse that. So I'm disappointed that she ruined our chances so spectacularly. Now we're stuck with special interests Perry.
But you know what? She's a person, too. Running in an election, she's a politician! And she has the capacity to make mistakes and have bat-crazy ideas about the government attacking its citizens. She's not infallible. Again, I reiterate my embarrassment that so many of my (supposed) fellow Texans are so blinded by adoration for this politician that they're willing to ignore and degrade anyone who isn't enamoured enough to go right along in such ignorance! Haven't we been burned enough in this state by the republicans playing the exact same game? "Ignore what's behind the curtain. Look at all this good stuff!"
I'd at least rather have him than someone who can't even make up their mind as to whether we can trust the very government structure she's attempting to take a place in.
I'll take you at face value Mr. Blevins. It seems the only respectful way to treat someone I don't know. So you're not a "Truther" but you say a true Libertarian should defend their right to demand answers. And because Beck thinks the level of questioning is silly, then he fails the test. Unfortunately, then I do too. Except that I don't think there's anything Libertarian about defending a position you find foolish just because someone else does.
Surely you can relate. In the realm of infinite possibilities there must exist beliefs that you would not defend. If I showed you a man who wanted to question the government about a "round earth conspiracy", would you say a Libertarian is obligated to join him? I can't imagine you would. So even a Libertarian has the right to say "that guy's crazy" every once in a while.
"But it's not the same" you may be thinking. "9-11 isn't settled the way the globe is." To whom? Maybe not to you, but to me they're both so completely answered that anyone who would believe an alternate theory has questionable sanity. Do I not have the right to make up my own mind? Am I beholden to represent a position I don't believe just because X other people do? That doesn't sound particularly Libertarian to me.
So if you think that sloppily written visa applications are evidence of a conspiracy so strong that we should be demanding answers, then that's the position you need to be defending. You can't just say "Libertarians question their government" and leave it at that, because we all have the right to think some questions are just stupid.
To NW_Neocon: I totally agree – we Texans DO have the responsibility to not elect a dimwit as Governor. The problem is - we are only being presented with a choice between THREE DIMWITS! What do we do now? (That, of course, does not include the SUPER-dimwits on the Democratic ballot.) No matter what anyone says, it takes a lot of money to run for office and I certainly don’t have enough nor do I know anyone of character who does. Which brings me back to the dilemma of once again having to vote for the “least-worst” option.
To Jackie: I agree – in retrospect, we DO owe Beck “a Texas-sized thank you” for the Medina interview. I’m also somewhat embarrassed about the ignorance and blind adoration of her supporters.
I, like many others, have followed Glenn Beck’s development and greatly respect and appreciate his knowledge of history and the Constitution and his ability to convey those ideas to our uneducated public who really needs the information. I temper that admiration with the fact that he is also a capitalist and an entertainer and is out to make profits. My first reaction to the Medina interview was that Beck ambushed her and wasn’t very fair – even before I knew much about her. The bottom line is I think she has a lot of public support for some really good values and ideas, but if she couldn’t handle that very simple “yes or no” question, she will NEVER survive the liberals in Austin nor the liberal media – they would eat her up. Thank you, Glenn, for showing us that before we put her in office. And yes, there are some liberals in Texas, not many, but they tend to be very loud. As much as I was/am desperately looking for a choice – ANY choice - other than Perry or KBH, this one obviously won’t cut it. Leadership means having the guts to take the shots no matter who is firing them. We already have a classless person leading this country - we sure don’t need another one leading one of the largest states.
Posted By: No Name Supplied
Date: 2010-03-02 06:40:02
As a registered Libertarian for 18 years, and an active LP member, I understand the suspicion when somebody of national prominence sings our praises. We are so used to being marginalized and misrepresented that our knee-jerk reaction is to lash back.
However, I suggest we take a different approach to Glenn Beck. We need to look at him as someone who is searching for the truth, and getting closer all the time.
Here you have someone who leans libertarian, and is promoting most libertarian ideals. He has exposed more people to the libertarian message in one hour than this website has in its entire history. Thanks to Beck, tens of thousands of people will likely be switching parties in the near future. This website's ranking jumped from relative obscurity to the top 5000 of all websites in just one weekend thanks to Beck.
Let's not destroy the good for want of the perfect. Glenn Beck may not be a perfect libertarian, but he is on the right track and he does us much more good than harm.
Posted By: No Name Supplied
Date: 2010-03-02 07:29:00
To the Medina supporters, please stop your crying. Becks's show is national; therefore, the majority of listners will have no VOTE in Texas's election. If you really believe in MS. Medina, put on your big girl panties and Deal with it. Go to work and get her elected.
As for Beck and the "truthers", I believe Beck has a hard on for the truthers and he is entitled to that OPINION, just as entitled as the truthers are to theirs. Beck is responsible for waking up the American people more than any single individual in this country and he encourages US to go further our understanding of history and the Founders intentions.
In closing, a true Libertarian does not waste so much time and energy attempting to stifle anothers OPINION!
Joe from PA. The birthplace of the Constitution and Liberty for all Mankind!!!
Posted By: No Name Supplied
Date: 2010-03-02 10:36:02
We are in for the toughest fight of our lives. Libertarians + Conservatives (aka Constitutionalists) need to band together against the Liberal + Statists (aka Progressives). If we don't unite, we will fail.Why aren’t we supporting each others instead?
I find it so hard to believe that the author of this article and a few of these commentators could possibly be libertarians. If they aren't progressive infiltrators, perhaps they are Libertarians, maybe confused ones. I have tested libertarian on this website for a few years now. Yet every time I go to a "so called" libertarian forum, I find these "haters". People who will nit pick every sound byte and word as though it sums up the whole of a person's beliefs and ideology. No we won't always agree on everything. That's fine. So why the hate? Just because you disagree with someone doesn't necessarily make them a "neo-con", "GOP shill", "media whore", or worse.
I implore those who hate or even support Beck/Palin and the people like them to stop fighting. There are more than enough progressives to undermine, infiltrate, and divide. Please just stop doing it before its too late!
From your article, it sounds like you're just hurt over Medina and are therefore finding any excuse to slam Beck. Get over it and stop attacking your allies - there's enough partisan bickering going around these days without picking fights with those who largely share your views.
First off, I don't think we need to continue painting pictures towards the darkest potential from one's actions. Secondly, I believe your open email to Glenn was *mostly* accurate and somewhat pointed in the right direction. I believe that Glenn truly is trying to maintain a neutral stance regarding any potential accusations towards any individual/entity until there is enough evidence to sit back and openly ask seemingly *hurtful* questions to avoid tarnishing his "word" and/or creating unnecessary disruption/panic amongst Americans in general. I believe that Fox "tries" to do this across the board with all of its news casters, however each one obviously has their own point of view and that always "bleeds" out through intonation or insinuation. Of course, this is my personal opinion based on his actions thus far and really only he can answer this question directly...via actions or voice.
Additionally, *hurtful*/*scary* questions now days are typically responded to by either answering the question in a manner that is matter of fact and denounces/confirms any form of association towards the question at hand =or= they can be responded to through misdirected accusations, negatively charged jokes and/or statements about the messenger and/or ignorance of the question, or simply not responding to the question at all!
There was this phrase: "Don't kill the messenger...they are simply conveying a message to you."
As we saw last night, Glenn has done his best to withhold from coming right out and accusing the administration of having a socialist goal, however as they have shown...the bread crumb trail indeed leads back to the core administration knowing of the surrounding members political activities and goals towards a more socialistic form of America. Without arguing right/wrong...the fact is that this administration either has no real understanding of government and is ignorantly pushing America towards a government structure that historically has failed =or= they are quite aware of their actions and have intentionally candy coated their actions through the means of misdirected blame and accusations.
Either case, I think Glenn has proven that he is willing to be *patriotic* in a way that does not jump to conclusions until the evidence is blatantly obvious...sort of that whole "innocent until proven guilty thing". So, I invite you to stop and look at how his language evolves as the evidence evolves, but in order to do this...there has to be a majority consensus and full understanding of the issues at hand before making blatant statements like our current President and associated administrative staff have "socialistic-like" goals or even worse that our government had some form of involvement in 9-11 whether it was passive, meaning they just waited for the right opportunity to do nothing, or it was aggressive, meaning they helped in some way-shape-or-form.
Either case, I believe once the immediate concerns have been vetted (i.e. let' s not turn socialist please...) then the right to ask even more questions about our government and what it has been up to will be less resistive as much of what has currently been exposed is enough to make most any "common" American of the past (two years or so ago) laugh at the thought that we would be where we are today.
Finally, being a Texan myself, while I felt that Debra had some very good ideas I also beg to question how a nurse could be so learned in the ways of politics without a support group. If you made tires your whole life and then someone asked you to run an automobile manufacturing plant...would you be suited for the job? In the same respect, I think Debra is a highly intelligent woman who has some form of support team that has been coaching her along the way or at least some form of mentor. Not to place accusations or the like, but I think we are living the problems with having a "support" team that is elected as opposed to the person running for office, as I do not think anyone who voted for Obama would have also voted for him had they known Van Jones and Andy Stern were sitting on his right and left shoulder whispering into his ears. So, while I think it is fantastic we have independents coming out and giving the primary parties' a run for their money, I also believe that we need to know much more about Debra's support team and what they stand for...because I don't think everything she spoke about during the debate came directly from her own experience but was more than likely discussed through either a support team and/or mentors that helped to coach her for the debate...again I could be very wrong and apologize for passing judgment before knowing her full story...but then again we have heard many people in the past two decades give great speeches and promise great things...only to end up where we are today.
With all of this being said, I would like to finally invite you to think about Texas at this point in time. We are constantly being viewed as being financially sound and "government light" as well very capitalist goal oriented, and all of this was maintained and held in place during Rick Perry's previous terms and hopefully will be in his next term to come.
As a Texan, I would rather keep Texas going in the direction Texas has been going in (even if you only agree with 50% of what has been happening) than take a chance with any other "unknown" that could bring more "change" than we expected. Keep moving in the direction Perry has been navigating us, and once the rest of the issues rampant in more democratic governed states have been addressed (or at least give Texas another couple of years of a "stronger economy") then let's look around and see who new is running for governor...but to switch to something unknown during such challenging times as opposed to sticking with something that is keeping Texas "ahead of the pack"...
Simply said...if it ain't broke...don't try to fix it...
Of course, this is only one opinion...as a Texan of 40+ years...and either case I dig this site and hope more people become aware of what platform they really stand for rather than what they currently *think* they stand for... :)
Has anyone considered the risks high-profile types like Glenn Beck take?
I have read and watched some of the articles and videos about 9/11 being a false flag event, and they disturbed me. A lot of the evidence is solid, but I'm reluctant to admit that my own government would go that far. Maybe that's how it is for Glenn, too, I don't know. And he's not an elected politician that we feel is obligated to open the issue up due to public pressure. But has anyone thought of the possibility that Glenn and his family's lives have been threatened if he mentions or pursues this avenue, considering how much pull he has with the public? Would YOU be willing to risk the lives of those you love, when the subject is getting plenty of attention without your help? Who of ANY of us is perfect enough to lay our lives and the lives of our families on the line, for a theory that already has plenty of backing?
Glenn may well be rightfully POd at me for saying this, but I'm merely pointing out that NONE OF YOU who disparage Glenn for not climbing on the 9/11 truther bandwagon, knows all that might be going on behind the scenes.
Mr. Blevins and I agree ideologically. However, his anger, name calling, and "stone throwing" will not bring others to our point of view. Beck, however, imperfect is doing just that.
I was disappointed in Glenn's comments towards Medina, but I don't think he truly understands the difference between a "Truther" and a "Skeptic". I honestly believe that Medina is a skeptic and not a truther, but she didn't help her cause any by her response.
The inability to coherently answer that question shows that Medina would have been a liability to the conservative/libertarian cause had she won. She would have been eaten for lunch and discredited a movement. Bush was completely dismissed because of his bumbling communication style, but at least he only hurt the neocon movement.
Had Medina responded something like this, I would have supported her.
"Glenn, you are the one who tells people to question boldly. It's time that a politician promotes the same thing. I don't believe that George Bush, a fellow Texan and Dick Cheney ordered the attacks of 9-11. That's crazy! I'm not what you would consider a "Truther", but you could fairly call me a "9-11 Skeptic". Much like global warming, you have those who think the issue is settled and no more evidence needs to be considered. On the other hand, you have skeptics with a lot of unanswered questions. I don't condone the radical conspiratorial approach that some are using to try and get answers to these questions. But if I'm placed in a position as governor of Texas to be albe to ask some questions, I'm going to follow your advice--TO QUESTION WITH BOLDNESS."
Had Medina answered accordingly, I don't think Glenn would have treated her as he did. But because she came across as unprepared and a little incoherent, I think Glenn did the movement a favor. At least with someone like Perry, he's not going to hurt the cause--even though he may hurt the state.
1st time here for me. Sooo, is this Bevins guy 'somebody'? or just a wannabe? Glenn Beck is the Thomas Paine of our day. Thank God for him. Matter of fact, I carried a sign stating that precisely- at the march on DC on 9/12. I love him to pieces. Bevins seems to have a limited ability in comprehension. He made accusations of GB that are preposterous and false. Way too many to even waste my time on. Bevins needs to do some research apparently, or stop being so dishonest. It's one or the other. Btw, I've been a Beck follower for at least 10 years, and have not been let down one time to date.
GLENN: And if you are, let me say it again. That's fine. I'm not trying to shut down anybody's free speech. You want to question with boldness? Is there a bigger questioning with boldness than that? "I think our government blew up the World Trade Centers and the Pentagon." Yeah, there's no bigger question you can ask.
GLENN: And if you believe that, you have a responsibility to continue to ask that question. And to continue to stand up for yourself. Just don't do it in the cover of darkness.
"Glenn Beck does not own himself. He has an owner. His name is Lowry Mays, Chairman and CEO of Clear Channel Communications. Mays pays Beck millions of dollars for his radio show.Over the years, Mays has also donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Rick Perry."
Beck is OWNED by Mays? Really? So syndicating means ownership of a person?
Millions of dollars...MILLIONS? Do you have a problem with someone making a profit? Why? If not, why say it?
Mays syndicates Beck + Mays has donated to Perry = Beck is an undercover shill and campaign worker for Perry with the sole intention of ambushing Medina and "sucker punching" her with a question...
Oh yes, you said Beck was a truther. You are sorely mistaken.
I have a question. Someone may believe that our government was so evil that it murdered 3000 Americans. Then that person wants your vote for the Governor of Texas. That question isn't pertinent? And let's entertain that thought. What position do you have to tell voters what is and what isn't pertinent to who governs Texas?
Oh yes...the french kissing....A JOKE!!! They do it OFTEN!
It is amusing, if not sad, that Blevins and those that agree with this article believe it is considered an ambush and attack on a candidate, running for Governor of Texas, my Texas, to ask...a question.
And Mr. Blevins, I would abstain from attacking Beck for apparently using a "litmus" test when it appears that if someone dares present an opinion other than yours, they are immediately a shill and not a libertarian.
for people who supposedly dont like to label people as republican or conservative or libertarian, a lot of you are doing just that to Glen Beck...As you have your preference for Madina, he had his preference for Perry..He is an american too guys..he gets to vote in this country too and if he found Perry as his preference why are you so against him saying so??? Because he didnt agree with you on this one??? Come on!! He didnt get to vote for the guy but you had your chance and all of texas as well and the majority of Texas voted on Perry!!If you are going to blame anyone for Perrys win, blame the Texas public that voted for him! Dont give me that speel that Glen influenced them...they should be doing their own research and deciding for themselves not just taking his word for it!!! This is how we got Obama in office!!! People not doing their own research and making up their own minds on what they have learned for themselves!!! Cry me a river!! If Granholm were to win again here in Michigan I wouldnt be yelling at MSNBC for supporting her, I would be bleeping at the people in Michigan!!! Get off your high horse...Glen is doing a job of exposing the idiots in office that we have now!! Thank him for that...but dont blame him for your loss in a race unless you only listened to him and followed like Obama sheep to the slaughter without doing your own homework!!!
So Beck liked your chart, linked to you from his site and crashed your server. Sent you a bunch of traffic (business) and the thanks you give him is to lamely criticise him. I've listenned to Glenn for 6 years now, Limbaugh 15 years. Why are their audiences so huge? Consistency. Lack of contradictions and integrity that you are clueless about. See, I believe in the American people. Do you have any idea the intelligence and education level of the majority of his listeners? Obviously not. Check out his demographics.
You cannot judge anyone with soundbites, brief bouts of listening to them and then not. I have been a fan of these guys for years and recognize that I won't agree with everything they say. That's ok. You my friend need to wake up and recognize your real enemies are much more dangerous than a couple guys on the radio and TV who have amassed huge audiences by expressing their opinions. Opinions in which resinate with mass numbers of educated, informed americans.
Wow, a lot of the real hardcore libertarians in the comments section sound just as bad as the invective-spewing moonbats in the comments sections of HuffPo and Daily Kos. I thought those of us on the side of personal liberty and anti-statism were a bit more accepting of those whose views differ from ours. I suppose I was wrong. Conservatives and Libertarians have already shown their impotence over the years because we've refused to believe that there existed people bold and stupid enough to remake our country into the shape of a pre-collapse Bismarckian welfare state, and we've allowed it to happen! Even now, the welfare state will take over fifty years to fully erase, even if we work to eradicate it EVERY HOUR of EVERY DAY until 2060. Since we have not been willing to stay that course, during the previous century, the only path made available to us was the path of submission to an omnipresent and ever-expanding federal government.
A commenter in some long-forgotten HotAir.com article once remarked that at this point, the only way to destroy statism is to allow those who subscribe to its doctrine to assume power fully and ruin our great nation. We may have a couple of awful decades, but the downfall of a statist America would discredit their ideology in its entirety, making it so that twenty years later, they wouldn't be back with more political support then before, exclaiming "Oh! It'll work this time," and "It failed because they weren't doing it correctly," and with a newer, younger, and fresher-faced army of indoctrinees willing to wail and gnash teeth in the streets to force the political change that they'd been waiting all 18-24 years of their lives for.
My point is this: If you don't like Glenn Beck, that's fine. Be sure to thank him for the increased web traffic and then proceed to the trenches on the battlefield of political warfare. That's where the real fight is at. We should know, anyway, as we've been fighting a losing battle against the statists for the last seventy years, and if we don't start fighting back with a sense of purpose sometime soon, our Constitution will be the first thing thrown onto their victory pyre.
Posted By: Jan (a different Jan from the one who commented ea
Date: 2010-03-06 18:10:19
I came to this site for the very first time today because Glenn Beck mentioned the Nolan Test on his TV show. I'm not a Texan, but as our government moves farther and farther toward socialism - I have given serious thought to moving to Texas because I know it to be the one state that truly values personal liberty above all else.
And then I saw the article "An Open Letter to Glenn Beck." I clicked on the article and read all the comments and thought I'd dropped into Alice's rabbit hole.
When I first watched Beck it was just Glenn in his bluejeans with his chalkboard (which I prefer to his suit and his new fancy set). As I continued to watch, he EARNED my respect. He backs up his facts with evidence; he doesn't just claim Van Jones is a communist, he shows video of Van Jones advocating communism; he shows video of another "czar" saying she admires Mao; when he gives his opinion, he makes it quite clear that he is telling you his opinion and not a fact. Fox News may have "suggested" the suit and the fancy new set, because he's a down-too-earth, self-educated, and self-made man. But make no mistake, Glenn Beck is still his own man.
He takes great risks to warn us of what is to come if our government continues down this track; he has received deaththreats from some who disagree with him. And while I DO NOT believe anyone on this site has made those kind of threats, I have read some comments that display the same kind of blind hatred and ignorance that live in the hearts of those that do make death threats against a TV and radio commentator and his family.
We are all individuals, and none of us will ever agree with everyone on every issue. (Thank heavens!) But we are all Americans, and presumably we all love this country. We should be able to discuss our differences of opinion with respect, not hatred, vile comments, personal attacks, and accusations that are not based in fact.
I know many of you Texans are disappointed that your independent candidate was apparently not secure enough in her opinions to answer a question put to her by Glenn Beck. I did not hear the radio show under discussion, but after reading all the comments above, both pro and con, that seems a fair representation of what happened.
If she were my prefered candidate, I would be disappointed too. But how on earth did that lead to an attack on Glenn Beck?? Why does that make him a shill? He's working for Saudi Arabia? He's "owned" by WorldCom? Are you "owned" by your employer just because you are payed for your work?
There were some fair and well reasoned arguments made here, but it is unfortunate that they were outnumbered by those spouting hate and misdirected anger. It's past time to take a deep breath, calm down, and THINK before you post.
He is not a Perry supporter. He had backed off his support of Rick Perry well before the election. He said he likes the election-mode Rick Perry, but not the governor-in-action Rick Perry (who is a whole different animal). He was also very clear that he was surprised that Perry, Medina and Hutchinson were the best that Texas could come up with.
I was listening to that Medina interview, and I interpreted Medina's answer to the Truther question as evasive. It sounded to me like she didn't want to take a stand so as not to offend anyone. She would have been better off to say exactly what she believes (as she did in an interview the next day). All she had to say was, "I personally do not believe that the government was involved in 9-11; however, I respect people's right to believe that or question the story that has been given to the American people."
She also hurt herself by saying that she 'laughed it off' when Glenn accused her of being a Truther becuase that was really not how it happened at all. By trying to spin it, she came off as just another full of crap politician. Don't get me wrong, I still think she was the best of the candidates. I just think she handled that situation badly, and it cost her.
Mr. Blevins expressed in an earlier comment "I think he did a very hypocritical thing in punking Medina the way the did--since HE'S a 9-11 Truther himself. " Glenn Beck is most definitely NOT a 9-11 Truther. I don't know where he got that idea.
I have read in many of the comments that Beck is a shill for the GOP. Listen to the show, people! He is a conservative, but he absolutely hates the GOP and how they have abandoned their principles.
Beck is the only one out there that I have heard warning people about the Progressive movement and how the progressives in BOTH parties are moving us towards statism and away from personal freedom.
Please don't form an opinion of Beck from random quotes that you read. You really have to listen (or watch) the show to understand where he is coming from.
Beck, in his own way, is doing more to promote libertarianism that anybody ever has! Why not exploit the attention he has gained? The timing is right for the party to make progress... but where are the one's that will stand and help do that? Most are still only critics and cynics.
Posted By: Red-hearted Girl from the Bluest of States
Date: 2010-03-08 07:57:10
I found this site tonight via a link from Beck's page, so I guess he really does believe in freedom of speech! I am a lifelong learner and as a result I have seen changes in my beliefs and opinions during a long life; changes that came about as I read, talked, and listened through the years and I believe Beck's changes, like mine, are the result of new information and considered reflection leading to understandings that have grown and changed over the years. Indeed, I believe a willingness to evolve over time, based on new learning, is the only way I can maintain my integrity once I realize my opinions of yesterday are not quite what they prove to be with further study today. In such circumstances to hold to old truths in spite new insights is hypocritical.
With all that said I need to admit that I have learned more history, civics, and government in the past year of watching Beck than I learned in many university and college classes that included graduate degree studies. I lived through JFK's Camelot days and was considered quite liberal at the time by most who knew me. I haven't moved that much on my values but my country has changed so much that I am now right of center! I spent much of my life in public education and came to see how Washington's misbegotten view of learning has led to the disaster found in schools today. I underwent a true metanoia when I learned my public school sponsored an oganization for young communists.
Someday I'll have to write a memoir of the decline of education as a result of federal meddling--no, not everyone is born to be a brain surgeon or physicist and our country needs people from all of the trades--are you aware of the fact that it is plumbers, electricians, and auto mechanics, not doctors and scientists, who inhabit most of the McMansions!
At any rate I pray for God to bless the country I love--and Glenn Beck--because he has helped me gain an even greater understanding of the nation I love. May I suggest that you also pray for the nation and for Beck because he has awakened us to our country's situation and encourages us to work to change its path into the future. He calls us to become engaged citizens and save our nation from progressivism.
Wowwie there is a lot of anger over such a small event. Beck asked Medina a question. She messed up. Yet here there are people putting down Beck, Palin, Rush and anyone who listens to them. Sounds a lot like Pelosi to me.
Lets devote some of this energy to solving the huge problems that are leaving our county vulnerable.
I do not understand the condesending tone of your comments above. Beck has never hidden the fact that he was more libertarian than anything, and it was not as if he "came out of the closet" or just recently discovered this as you claim. He has never hidden any of his viewpoints or personal beliefs, on the contrary he has paraded them around for all to critisize. And critisize they have! He makes it very well known that this is only his opinion, he is not a reporter, he states his opinion, and there just happens to be so many million Americans who share the same beliefs. My question to YOU sir, is rather than critsize Beck for being a watered down Libertarian and destroying Medina and the great state of Texas.... what exactly are you doing? What have you done to counter the Beck affect? What have you done to support Medina in her cause and save her good name, what have you done to make America, Texas, or your own community a better place? What are you doing to spread the Libertarian message? Simply because his beliefs are different than yours does not make you a better Libertarian, or more correct. You could not come off any more arrogant in your beliefs! Why are you the authority on TRUE Libertarianism? As Libertarian, wouldn't that go against everything you believe?
Mike Blevins: you say: "She was the voice of a revitalized Republican Party--recast in its original libertarian trappings."
Question what are these "original libertarian trappings" of the GOP? Thomas DiLorenzo says just the opposite in his book Lincoln Unmasked:
"It is not an exaggeration to say that one of the primary reasons--if not the primary reason--for the creation of the Republican Party was to establish the largest political patronage program in the history of government." - .p114
Posted By: Ron Benvenutti
Date: 2010-03-13 00:01:34
You know, instead of throwing around political labels that all too often can be (and are) narrowly defined to suit one's own interests, how about utilizing the Nolan Chart Test questions as the means of judging a particular person's stand on the main issues, and see how closely they come to matching your own views.
It seems that each of the four cardinal chart areas correctly allows for a flexible mix of answers, more closely matching the range of viewpoints that does exist across America.
As I get older, I find it all the more important that all opinions need to be freely expressed, without fear of recrimination or repression.
I also find that it is even more important to be extra careful who is given political power that can be misused, and with it, further limit individual sovereignty.
Someone once said that you should always indulge yourself to castigate that 'so-in-so' in writing so that you get it all down just the way you want it said, then crumple up the letter and throw it away, un-sent. That way, you got it off your chest, but no one will think less of you, because they will have never known of it.
Who has suggestions on how to assure the current office holders and up-coming candidates are paying close attention to the main issues, and are aware that 'We the People' will hold them accountable?
This whole page is a waste. Nice to see that the Alex Jones fans have figured out how to surf away from the infowars website. It's proof that even sheep can learn. No, I don't care for Beck either.
This article sucks. Are you schilling for SEIU? Clearly you've spent exactly 6 nano seconds listening to Beck. Allow me to deliver a swift kick to your soap box...there,did the scales fall off?
I listened to that interview of Medina and liked what she had to say and was shocked when she could not answer a perfectly legitimate question in any meaningful way. I felt uncomfortable for her but also about her as the interview concluded. I was surprised at the level of criticism Glenn tossed at her afterward but came to understand it as a legitimate reaction to her unwillingness to be upfront with him on the issue.
I myself have always flipped back and forth between conservative and libertarian views on issues and the Nolan chart reflected that when I completed the survey. I really think it does all of us a disservice by pigeon-holing others as this or that within the Individual rights/ Constitutional Republic/ Capitalist realm. The other side representing the Common good statist/Big/World government/Labor controlled realm is currently in control of a fragile economy that will spiral us down into either anarchy or tyranny if left unchecked. We should be combining our strengths, not bickering over our differences, at least until this scourge is removed and control is again in the hands of "We The People".
I am hearing the same kind of bickering, chest-poking and even some backstabbing going on between and amongst the radio/TV personalities who espouse conservative views. These include Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Mark Levin, Michael Savage and others. These people are all entertainers first and political commentators second. None of them are true leaders, although a couple I might actually vote for if they were running for an office!. The point is that they DO present our thoughts, views and beliefs as a whole to the (mostly) ignorant and asleep public. We need their voices and we do not need them to project infighting and bickering any more than we need that amongst ourselves as conservative/libertarians, whatever.
This is our time to take back what we should not have let go in the first place (shame on us all). We cannot afford to squander our strength fighting amongst ourselves over idealogical sticking points. We need to focus on the game at hand. It is the two minute warning in nthe fourth quarter of the most important game of our lives. And we have to win, because if we lose there is no next season...
Thank god. Finally, the quintessential libertarian. At least that is implied by Mr. Blevin's rant.
"Voice of Reason" makes an excellent observation when he asks if Mr. Blevins has ANY familiarity with Beck's show beyond the Medina interview.
But the real problem I see with the writer of the original piece and a number of the follow-on writers is simply that there is a genuine and righteous cloaking of themselves in an elitism that is at once alienating and suffocating. Alienating of others and suffocating of themselves.
If these people are the heart and soul of what libertarians have become, it is no wonder we are having so much trouble making inroads into the culture at large. I wouldn't want to spend 5 minutes with someone who says how much they aren't like me and how much that wasn't OK with them.
As libertarians we need to be precise and intransigent in our devotion to our intellectual roots and our ideals. But as important as that is for our own intellectual growth, it should in no way interfere with our ability to remain inclusive and accepting of others on the path.
On any freeway in the country traffic moves at different speeds, in different lanes and we are free to take any off ramp we choose. This is an analog to my approach to those whose ideas do not comport with mine: Allies as long as we move towards more freedom; then part company when we don't.
Thumbs down for this piece but thumbs up for the next one perhaps in anticipation of something a bit less snarky.
I think Beck would be more accurately called a "constitutionalist", as he is constantly questioning how (current issues) interfere with or circumvent various constitutional tenets. He, like me, makes mistakes, takes the wrong side at times and can even make a mess of things periodically. In my case nobody notices. But in the public forum as Mr. Beck is that can cause all sorts of reverberations. But I have watched and read Beck and the one thing I am sure of - he's a much needed voice today to re-educate most "I didn't know that" US citizens about the one thing that is being torn up and burned away in front of our very eyes. We are a constitutional republic. The Constitution gave very limited powers to the federal government and a set of checks and balances to prevent attempts to grab more power. And the current political system dems, repubs, liberals, statists, progressives, centrists have all been doing their best for a long time to circumvent the Constitution and grab more control, and for the last couple generations at least, we've let them. So, Mr. Beck, since you've got the (re)public's eye and ear, SPEAK UP, GLENN! Keep poking people until more of us wake up and smell the burning parchment and take action. We know you'll make mistakes, but hey, you're only human like we are. Just don't let up and maybe, just maybe, enough of us will listen to you and get moving so we can take the country back to its roots, which served it so well for so long and can do so again.
Wow! The hate on this comments page is amazing! I don't care for hate, or name-calling. I voted for Medina, and I am proud of it. I have listened to, watched, and read Beck for a long time and have enjoyed many things I have learned. But I, also, think he was over the top in his handling of the interview. And those who are defending him seem to have NO problem with the fact that he has not called out Sarah Palin for the very same support of questioning the 9/11 report.
People will always argue about 9/11. For me, I have questions, but I am too busy fighting the marxist takeover of our government to do exhaustive research. The little I have done does point to the fact that the official report is highly flawed.
Have YOU ever been on the Glenn Beck show? I have, and it is incredibly nerve-wracking! It is hard to get your whole point out, as he aggressively drives the pace of the conversation and many times does not let you finish your sentence. This happened to me once, and I was not talking about anything controversial. Did you see the two debates and how she cleaned up and was very able to think on her feet and articulate intelligent policy positions while the other two fought like cats and dogs? I ALSO HAPPEN TO KNOW MORE INSIDE INFO REGARDING THE INTERVIEW, because I got to know Debra personally through a friend of a friend on her staff.
1) She was told before by Pat Gray that she would be asked about her campaign, and she was to give as much information as possible about it.
2) After Glenn asked her the "truther" question, she gave a short answer, fully expecting Glenn to chime in after that. But what really happened is that the Beck studio cut off her audio feed, and she could hear only silence...so she thought she was supposed to go on. This gave the appearance that she was being incoherent and rambling, when in reality, she could hear nothing on the other end.
3) Within 30 MINUTES, robocalls for Perry and KBH went out with the clip of her interview on it! Those who have knowledge of the creation of robocalls KNOW that it is virtually impossible to put together a robocall in that little time. The only possible explanation is that the other campaigns had prior knowledge of the question and had gotten consent from the Beck show to use the clip. That is very shady.
There is also very close correlation between Glenn, Pat, and a radio show host and TX legislator named Dan Patrick, who really had it in for Medina all along.
Those comments which suggested a more coherent, firm answer must realize that hindsight is 20/20....would you have come up with such eloquent quotes on the spot after being shocked by a question you were not expecting?
I think it is wrong of Beck to label truthers as lunatics. Questioning our most recent governments is the MOST sane thing you can do. We have been conditioned in this country, especially patriotic conservatives, to always assume the best of our government, and to think otherwise is treasonous! The problem with that is we have all been brainwashed by our schools, TV, etc. If anyone thinks that Fox is giving us all of the truth, then he/she needs to do some independent research!
By the way, I HAVE done my research on Perry....facts, figures, and actual speeches he's made. Have you? Here is what I have found, and it is all hard fact, I assure you:
Said in Aug. '01 at a Border Summit that he supported Mexican Pres. Fox's "vision of an open border".
He signed into law in 2001 a bill giving in-state tuition to illegals (and also free cash grants).
He is proud of extending Schip healthcare to Mexican citizens living on the Mexican side of the border (that's American tax dollars going to another country)
He continues to push for the Trans Texas Corridor, even though it is not called by that name anymore...he even called a special session last summer to try to get the funding for the toll-roads. And his son sits on the board of the Spanish company that would have received the bid to co-own and benefit from these roads (some of which are alread built and paid for!).
Because of his close ties to Merck, he tried to mandate a very untested, dangerous HPV vaccine for all TX girls 9+ years old.
He actually wrote Harry Reid to encourage the passage of the bailout bill, while at the same time publicly decrying it.
He DID take federal stimulus money.
All of you Texans who are going to vote for him in November will, upon his probable re-election, be responsible for holding his feet to the fire regarding his spending, his business taxation, his lies about the kinds of jobs created (all GOVT!), his desire to keep the borders open and encourage illegals. If you don't, I am ashamed to call you a fellow Texan!
MY MOST IMPORTANT POINT IS THIS: Those that believe this progressivism stuff stops at our shores are incredibly naive. What each of you must understand is that we are not just fighting to keep our country from becoming communistic, we are fighting a MUCH bigger enemy: globalism, or the New World Order. Don't be myopic and just focus on the political fighting within our borders. You MUST know what is really going on! And also please remember that our founders did NOT believe in alliances or military entanglements all over the world. Read Washington and Jefferson. The mainstream Republican party is so far from the foreign policy of our founders, it is pathetic! I didn't know that until I really started reading their words, and I am ashamed of my past ignorance. Also research:
Council on Foreign Relations
Bilderbergers
Agenda 21 (UN)
Hegelian Dialectical Process
Codex Alimentarius (UN)
And Mike, I admire you for exercising your 1st amendment rights...it seems as though those who are extremely disgusted at your opinions just might be falling prey to the same intolerance they have learned from Glenn Beck. Hope I am wrong.
I say we stop bashing people like Glenn Beck and thank him for opening our eyes to the corruption all around us! I say we work together to try and get out of the mess we are in! Concentrate on the attributes of one and the good they do--and the good we can and should do--instead of tearing one down that brings light to our eyes!! He is not perfect, as none of us are, including you Mr. Blevins. Take the log out of your own eye! Give credit where credit is due. We are in challenging times and unless we go back to basic moral and Godly principles, I am very much afraid we are doomed! We can't continue to shake our fist at God and expect to receive the blessings this country has received in the past--hence, current day chaos! We better wake up!!!
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
